Civ No. 01-1294 MV/LAM.United States District Court, D. New Mexico.
December 29, 2004
Karen Peyton, pro se Thomas Brown, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Sean Olivas, Attorney for Defendants.
MARTHA VAZQUEZ, District Judge
On May 5, 2004, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count VI of Plaintiffs’ Complaint [Doc. No. 111]. The Court ordered Defendants to submit to the Court a revised Medicaid application form as described in the Opinion for judicial approval no later than 45 days from the date of the Memorandum Opinion and Order. On June 23, 2004, Defendants submitted two revised Medicaid applications to the Court that contained the medical assignment language the Court requested. Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed an affidavit of Sharon Regensburg authenticating the application documents [Doc. No. 119].
As Defendants have complied with the Court’s order and the language in the Medicaid applications makes clear that an application for Medicaid will assign only medical support, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ final claim for injunctive and declaratory relief is moot and should be dismissed. The Court finds that the applications comply with federal law and provide Plaintiffs and others similarly situated a way to apply for Medicaid without assigning their child support rights to the State of New Mexico. This is, in essence, what Plaintiffs requested. See Complaint
at ¶¶ K, L. Plaintiffs themselves have conceded that the revised Medicaid application complies with federal standards. See
Plaintiffs’ Response in Opp. to Defendants’ Motion to Extend and Stay at ¶ 8. In fact, Plaintiff Karen Peyton filled out the revised Medicaid application in 2002 and her children have been receiving benefits since that time. See id. at ¶ 5. Furthermore, Plaintiff Karen Peyton has not alleged that future violations are likely to occur. “[I]f during the proceedings violations cease and the accused admittedly is in full compliance, without reason to believe that future violations will occur, the justiciable controversy disappears and the question becomes moot.” See Walling v. Shenandoah-Dives Mining Co., 134 F.2d 395, 397-98 (10th Cir. 1943).
IT IS ORDERED that Claim VI of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.